Ella Cox v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child
2022 Ark. App. 26
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- Child JC (two weeks old at removal) was taken into DHS custody after workers observed parents—Ella and Garry Cox—handling him roughly and the family facing imminent homelessness.
- Both parents have intellectual disabilities; Ella previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated as to multiple older children in California and Oklahoma.
- DHS provided about a year of services (transportation, homemaker services, psychological evaluation, and one-on-one parenting instruction) but concluded Ella still could not care for JC without constant supervision.
- DHS petitioned to terminate parental rights alleging multiple statutory grounds, including prior involuntary terminations and failure to remedy; foster parents were willing to adopt JC.
- The circuit court found clear-and-convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground and that termination was in JC’s best interest (considering adoptability and potential harm) and terminated Ella’s rights.
- Ella appealed; appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief/motion to withdraw; the Court of Appeals affirmed and granted counsel’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Cox's Argument | DHS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory ground for termination was proven (prior involuntary terminations) | Termination was unjust given her circumstances and progress; disability should not be dispositive | Ella had prior involuntary terminations of other children—an enumerated statutory ground | Court: Ground proven; supports termination |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest — adoptability | Argued for reunification; contested permanency | JC is adoptable; foster parents willing to adopt; caseworker testimony supports adoptability | Court: Adoptability established; favors termination |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest — potential harm if returned | Asked for more time; claimed progress and ability to stabilize | Ella’s limited capacity, history, and ongoing instability create forward-looking risk of harm | Court: Potential-harm prong satisfied; return would risk JC’s health/safety |
| Whether more time should have been granted | Requested additional time to secure housing and services | After >1 year of individualized services, return within reasonable time from child’s perspective was not feasible | Court: Denial of more time was not error; permanency requirement justified termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark. 2004) (permitting no-merit brief procedure in dependency-neglect appeals)
- Cheney v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 396 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for termination-of-parental-rights appeals)
- Pratt v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 413 S.W.3d 261 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (clear-and-convincing-evidence and clearly erroneous standards explained)
- Harper v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 378 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (best-interest factors include adoptability and potential harm)
- Dowdy v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 314 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (potential harm is forward-looking and broad in scope)
- Cole v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 543 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (caseworker testimony that a child is adoptable can support an adoptability finding)